It's that time of year for ghosts and goblins.  Jack o' lanterns and cobwebs all abound.  Not the least bit unusual to see mummies and zombies walking the streets.

Here's hoping you have plenty of opportunity for hot Apple Cider and many youngsters to help eat the candy.  I'll keep on the look out for those "hidden taxes," "scary resolutions" and "deadly decisions." 

 

Well, your Island County Commissioners have done more than congress has with passing a budget.  It comes once again this year with levy increases.   

 

As allowed by law the current expense levy, the road levy and the conservation futures levy have all been increased by 1%.  It may not seem like much but these "1 percenters" can really add up.  Six last year, three already this year and Commissioner Homola and Price-Johnson are talking about creating a new countywide district.

 

I probably don't need to tell you that I once again opposed these tax increases.  While speaking against them at the public hearing, I realized that every increase that has come before this board has been passed---by a 2-1 vote, of course, but I believe everyone has been passed, and in the midst of the worst economic downturn since the "Great Depression."  My history tells me that is not a good mix.  

 

Here is a link to my sound off in the Whidbey News Times: Whidbey News Times Sound Off, October 14, 2012           

  

Earlier this month I attended a meeting of the WA State Geologist Licensing Board at UW Bellingham.  I was there to speak in my capacity as a licensed professional, with an electrical Master's license and as a county commissioner with many concerned and/or impacted constituents.

 

The board members called attention to there being an unusually large turnout for this meeting.  Most everyone was there for the same reason as I--a recent Attorney General office's (AGO) opinion that basically passed the baton back to this board.

 

There were a number of licensed scientists, one representing a much larger group of more licensed scientists.  There were representatives of the BIAW (Building Industry Association of WA), property rights groups, punitively damaged citizens, a few Whatcom county employees and myself.

 

The AGO interpreted the issue under question to be: Must a person be a licensed geologist or hydrogeologist in order to perform any processes pertaining to wetlands as required under GMA (Growth Management Act)? 

 

The AGO called out areas of the law where "others" are allowed to perform "functions" with provisions and showed Board Policy that gives "weight" to State Agency (DOE) interpretation of ambiguous statutes. The AGO then pointed out that the Licensing Board was given the authority to administer and enforce the statues.          

 

I believe that many there would have liked to see the AGO answer the question: Can anyone other than a state licensed geologist be in "responsible charge" (approve, liable for) of geological work or conclusions?     

 

After providing disclosure of my personal interest in the board's actions, I began to tell of the horrifying stories constituents share with me and how disheartening that is for an elected official.  I then put on my licensed professional hat and spoke of how licensing requirements are created for consumer protection.

 

I told of the anywhere from 6 - 9 years of both targeted schooling and workforce guidance necessary to provide the required consumer protection for the electrical industry.  Then reverting back to my elected official hat, I stated with certainty my opposition to licensing a "wetland scientist" who can achieve that certification with just a 72 hour course.

 

Land use cases have become the largest cost driver in insuring the counties against bankrupting legislation.  We [the counties] cannot risk making determinations based on inadequate science and licensing anyone with less than a Bachelor of Science degree promotes exactly that.    

 

After conveying that information to the board, I concluded my time with this statement: "Standing behind your state licensed experts would 1) provide the consumer protection as intended by law; 2) create a clearer path for counties to be able to protect the "individual rights" as required by our state constitution; and 3) encourage the "wetland scientists" to become fully credentialed in their chosen fields.           

 

Well, I may be batting 500 at the Northwest Clean Air Agency (NWCAA).  (Which just goes to show why I put so much effort into these outside groups.  I can't seem to get into the low three figures with my colleagues at the county.)

 

Yes, the NWCAA executive director is firmly behind my idea of getting our region out of the Seattle airshed.  "If we are pulled into non-attainment status, it is unlikely we would ever recover," was his recent statement on the subject.

 

Our current airshed, which encompasses from King County to the Canadian border, has many monitoring locations.  One of these locations in particular has, in the past, registered with significant enough levels of "pollutants" to have put all areas within the airshed in "non-attainment." 

This would bring heavy regulations on existing industries and drive up the cost on expansion (read: higher costs, less jobs).  Our effort to free us from that seemingly unjustifiable and potential economy killing constraint will bring the opportunity for remarkable stability to our region.